Tides of War

East, you are a great chap, thank you very much for your reply! What you said has revived my hope that you will improve your game to its full potential, which is the best naval simulation on the market. And I think it's just great to have a developer who actually listens to their customers.

I don't know about the expectations of others, but I think if you really fix the things you mentioned it will be in the interest of the majority of players, and it will scare nobody away from the game.

Points to improve would IMO be:

> The easier level you mentioned is great, because right now the game is too hard for me!

> Engagements should start out at a greater distance, so that the player can devise a strategy and stay undetected for a while. I don't want to blow up things instantly, I want to be a hunter!

> When I play a submarine mission I end a mission only when I have returned to the surface and successfully evaded the escorts. Right now this is only possible if I have destroyed the escort ships, which I don't like. It would be much better if I could hide and stay submerged long enough until the surface ships have given up looking for me.

> It just shouldn't happen that a submarine is destroyed if it submerges right at the beginning of the mission and stays at crush depth without moving, or that airplanes come straight at me before I have done anything.

> You don't have to implement a dynamic campaign (but I wouldn't mind!), I would be happy with random missions where I can adjust variables like opposition type/strength, starting distance, weather. I especially would like random missions where I face real convoys with just a few escort ships. When I think about it, it shouldn't be so difficult to implement that because you already have random patrols. (And I would also like to play the nimble super-cool Type VII in patrols, why is that not possible?)

> It would be great to have the mission in an open format like XML, because people could create their own missions. There might even be people who create a custom campaign generator like the ones that were made for CFS2 or IL-2. If you don't mind ;-)

Concerning realism, I don't think SHII failed because it was too realistic, but because it didn't have a random campaign, and because many good features were broken. Just look at how great CAOD has been though it was a pure simulation, there are still people playing it today.

Apart from that I think any more comparison between SHII and ERT is pointless, because the publisher of SHII made about any mistake they probably could, from sacking of the initial development team Aeon (who wanted to create the ultimate submarine simulator and fell from grace), to the regrettable AI, to abandoning the game post release, i.e. no patches to fix the many things that were broken. None of that can be said about ERT.

I would say you are too modest when you say you could not refine ERT enough, I think the core game is very solid, I had no crashes, bugs etc, and nearly everything, the sound, setting, athmosphere is very neat. I am a developer of CAD/Database software myself, and I would be proud if my software was always so polished :-)

I will tuned and I wish you a lot of success with the future development of your great game.

I will forgo the blow by blow, but I will clarify:

1) The only mission I had difficulty with was the 4th USA submarine mission. The rest can be beaten in 2 to 3 tries. As much as it may appear sometimes, there isn't a 2% chance of success, there is a 100% chance of success within a few tries IF you find the right strategy - the secret to the strategies are in the orders and your XO responses.

2) All balance issues will be gradual improvements (changes). We don't want to ruin the hard work you have put in. Please note, things like torpedo speed (where our researcher had the wrong information put into the game) will be changed to the correct numbers right away. Vulnerability issues for subs will be gradual so you can adapt easily.

3) The confusion between versions is due primarily to the problems with GMX. USA got delayed, the game had improved, we released a FEATURE PATCH for Europe (UK) that brought it up to the US version. The upcoming feature patch will take both versions another step closer to our desired game.

4) Battleships and the bigger classes of ships in multiplayer will be rare, multi-crewed and require significant rank to command (usually).

5) It has always been our intention to create a structure for missions that allow players to create their own, we just haven't had the bandwidth to make it happen. Watch for some user modable features in the upcoming Patch.

The next chapter of Enigma will have a substantially more diverse and random campaign with rules of engagement and far fewer timers, etc. You will get a taste of it in the new project we plan to announce as we get closer to Christmas - it is already under way. BTW - we do projects to stay alive, MP is suffering schedule wise due to the financial crunch that GMX has caused and will not make it to testing this year. Yup, you heard it here first. We are very unhappy about this, but we don't have a lot of choices.

--East

Speaking of incorrect data, does this mean that the LFN will eventually get the Type 93 (aka Long Lance)? Imagine a 49 knot torpedo with a 22000 yard range fired in salvoes of 20 from a torpedo(!) cruiser...

Of course, that may severely unbalance the game, though they were introduced in 1935. Blind-firing at a convoy on torpedo bearings may actually become a feasible strategy.

And if you tune the speed down to 37 knots (faster than the torpedoes currently in game), you get 44,000 yards -- easily outranging the Hoods even though you'll never hit anything at that range.

4)  Battleships and the bigger classes of ships in multiplayer will be rare, multi-crewed and require significant rank to command (usually).

!!!: notify: hehe: Too freakin' cool!

You don't know how long I've been dreaming about this approach. I would love to hear more! You mean seperate gunnery officers, helmsman, navigator, radar man etc?

What a great thread here...too much to comment on ..just taking it all in...good points all around...and yea didn't think of the unbalanced thing, but like in ole IW, I prefered the Vette II type with the hogs for hunting down them subbies...a whole gang of em would be cool with support ships standing guard farther off.....MP will tell all....Can't wait for the weekly battles to begin again....let the World War Begin

I must say after reading this I feel somewhat thick!! i am not getting anywhere fast with the campaigns.

However that is good news about some of the WW1 ships being added

Please please please please pretty please can you add HMS Agamemnon the Lord Nelson Class battleship 1906 -1929 I know she was not around irl at the point when the game is set but this is alternative history!!!

I can supply the stats and pictures if you want any info on her

Well, some of us have had a lot of practice - started on the very first (pre-Gigex I think) demos; Gigex Limited Edition; 6 subsequent demos from TAG; 2 more via GMX; the GMX UK retail itself; beta testing of the North American update patch and its final version.

About the only flavour I've never tried is the DreamCatcher demo.

All told, I've reckon I've played (but not necessarily completed!) over a thousand missions or patrols.

/bux

CaptStumpy.

Please update your email address in your control panel, I am getting returned emails saying your email address doesnt exist.

I suppose practice makes perfect but it could be I am too used to naval combat with Wooden ships and sails, where tactics are somewhat different

I suppose practice makes perfect but it could be I am too used to naval combat with Wooden ships and sails, where tactics are somewhat different

Do you find yourself shouting "stroke!" into your mike?